Friday, October 3, 2014

The General House of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) in Switzerland has just released an interview granted by the Superior-General of the SSPX, Bp. Bernard Fellay, on the meaning of the meetingheld with the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), Cardinal Gerhard Müller, on September 23.

In this section of the interview on the subject of doctrine Cardinal Walter Kaspar and Bishop Bernard Fellay are ignorant of how 'new princioples', doctrinal changes, are based on the irrationality of being able to see the dead on earth.They infer that these these deceased are explicit exceptions to all needing to enter the Church for salvation. This irrationality is now being adapted to marriage.

In the proposals of Cardinal Kasper, where do you see a pastoral application that makes more evident a doctrinal change introduced during the Council? Where do you see a “time bomb?”

Bishop Fellay:In the interview that he (Cardinal Kaspar) granted to the Vaticanist Andrea Tornielli on September 18th, the Cardinal says: “Church doctrine is not a closed system: the Second Vatican Council teaches us that there is a development, meaning that it is possible to look into this further.

Lionel: When he refers to a development in ecclesiology he is going back to the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 which infers that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are visble, known in the present times.So they are exceptions for him to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to Fr.Leonard Feeney. 1 So Vatican Council II has 'developed' when Lumen Gentium 16 ( saved in invincible ignorance) etc are visible for him.They(LG 16 etc) refer, for Cardinal Kaspar, to known in 2014 exceptions to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

I wonder if a deeper understanding similar to what we saw in ecclesiology, is possible in this case (i.e. that of divorced Catholics who have remarried civilly).

Lionel: By a deeper understanding in ecclesiology he means there is known salvation outside the Church, since the deceased now saved and who are in Heaven are also visible and known on earth in 2014.He concludes that these deceased-visible for him are known exceptions to Fr.Leonard Feeney's understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Although the Catholic Church is Christ’s true Church, there are elements of ecclesiality beyond the institutional boundaries of the Church too.

Lionel: And these cases are visible and known for him in 2014 to be exceptions to the traditional ecclesiology. So there is 'a development of docrine' for him with this irrationality.This is the interpretation acceptable to the Jewish Left.

Couldn’t some elements of sacramental marriage also be recognized in civil marriages in certain cases? For example, the lifelong commitment, mutual love and care, Christian life and a public declaration of commitment that does not exist in common-law marriages.”

Lionel:He does not know any exception to the rule, yet he will assume that the exception must now be the rule.Similarly he does not know of any non Catholic saved outside the visible limits of the Church i.e without Catholic Faith and the baptism of water, but he willl assume that there is a defacto case in 2014 and so the traditional teaching has changed, for him.

Cardinal Kasper is quite logical and perfectly consistent: he proposes applying pastorally to marriage the new principles concerning the Church that were spelled out at the Council in the name of ecumenism:

Lionel: These 'new principles' have not come into the Church at Vatican Council II. They came into the Church in 1949 at Boston. They were accepted by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the SSPX bishops and priests.

Hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire etc were assumed to be visible and known exceptions, to the traditional interpretation of extra ecclesiam nulla salus.In other words the deceased-saved were objectively seen to be exceptions to all needing to enter the Church. They accepted this irrationality and did not know that this was a contradiction of the Catholic Church's traditonal teaching on ecumenism and other religions.So Vatican Council II emerged as a break with the past for Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX bishops who did not know what caused this break.They were not aware of the irrational premise being used in the interpretation. Any magisterial document interpreted, while assuming the dead are visible, will emerge non traditional.

there are elements of ecclesiality outside the Church. He moves logically from ecclesial ecumenism to matrimonial ecumenism.

Lionel: It should be logical for Bishop Bernard Fellay since he too, interprets Vatican Council II and the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 in the same way as Cardinal Walter Kaspar.

Thus, in his opinion, there are elements of Christian marriage outside of the sacrament.

Lionel: Which he knows personally and which can be verified! These known cases are once again exceptions to the rule.

Cardinal Cushing got away with it once , with reference to salvation. He is trying to see if he can get away with it a second time, this time with marriage.

In both cases the theological error is based on non existent cases. Hypothetical cases are considered defacto exceptions to Tradition.

What is pathetic is that the SSPX makes the same mistake.

To look at things concretely, just ask spouses what they would think of “ecumenical” marital fidelity or fidelity in diversity! Similarly, what are we supposed to think about a so-called “ecumenical” doctrinal unity that is united in diversity? This sort of result is what we denounce, but the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith either does not see it or else does not accept it.

Lionel:

The Holy Office in 1949 made an objecive mistake and the Holy Office today (CDF) does not want to acknowledge it.-Lionel Andrades

In the course of the Council the “subsistit in” took the place of the previous “est”. It contains in nuce the whole ecumenical problem. The “est” claimed that the church of Christ Jesus “is” the Catholic Church. This strict identification of the church of Christ Jesus with the Catholic Church had been represented most recently in the encyclicals Mystici corporis (1943) and Humani generis (1950). But even according to Mystici corporis there are people who, although they have not yet been baptised, are subsumed under the Catholic Church because that is their express desire (DS 3921). Therefore Pius XII had condemned an exclusive interpretation of the axiom “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” already in 1949.- Cardinal Walter Kaspar, on the website of the Vatican Council for Christian Unity

In this blog I want to show that sexually provocative clothing can lead to sexual activity. The lust that provocative clothing cause is for sex for pleasure outside of marriage, and not to bring a child into the world. The type of sex that this could provoke, based on lust, could lead to an un-wanted pregnancy. And this pregnancy could end with the unborn baby being murdered at an abortion mill.

As many of you know, the 40 Days For Life has begun again. I went to pray the Holy Rosary where they kill unborn babies this morning after Latin Mass. There was a group of Catholics praying the Holy Rosary in Spanish. There were also some ex-Catholics there protesting the abortions going on.

What first struck my mind were several women dressed very immodestly. A few were Catholics, but most of the others were from a Protestant church. (I know because I was at the organizing meeting and met them). In particular was a 14 year old young woman in very short pants and another woman next to her in leggings.

After we prayed the Holy Rosary, I kindly explained how dressing immodestly causes men to want to have sex without wanting children, and if the woman gets pregnant, she may want to kill that baby.

I had assumed the woman next to her was her mother and I explained it very kindly, not accusing them of anything and saying that I know that they are not why dressing immodestly to have sex. Well the young woman turned out to be the daughter of the organizer for 40 Days for Life from the protestant Church. She came over to me very very upset because I had caused her daughter to cry.

I tried to explain what happened and why I told both women what I did. She still was very upset with me over saying anything to her daughter. I explained to her that immodest dress offends God and it is in the Bible to dress modestly.

Finally she told me, what many women in my last parish told me, that the problem is with us men, for thinking about sex when we see sexually provocatively dressed women. We men are the problem for having dirty minds. They believe that the Bible is wrong, the Catholic Church (that use to preach against this) is wrong and that the sin is in the men who are tempted to look.

Feminist want men to be women and react and be like women. Men are not made like women nor do we react like women. Men are very visual. We men are very weak sexually. I asked her if she had a husband to ask, whether dressing like this caused him sexual temptations. She said no. I should of asked her to ask her father. As I was leaving, all of the group of ladies from her church were talking together.

Nothing in my life has ever caused me more suffering than speaking the truth that immodest dressing offends God and is wrong. I have always done it with love and taking to time to give Biblical and rational reasons.

It was God’s chosen people who punished, ridiculed and killed the Prophets and Jesus. I will go on speaking here on my blog and to whom ever I can about what does and does not please God no matter what the consequences are. I have and will continue to be shunned and persecuted from so called “Holy Catholics”, along with protestants. I guess we will have to wait for death to be told by God who is right. I put my bet on the Bible that states it clearly, dress with modesty.

“In like manner women also in decent apparel: adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety, not with plaited hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly attire, But as it becometh women professing godliness, with good works.” 1 Timothy 2: 9-10

Thank God my mother was a woman of modesty and good taste in the way she dressed. I never was ashamed of being with her in public. She did wear pants a few times, but mostly she wore only dresses below the knees.

Our Mother Mary is the model and example of beauty and modesty. Thank you to all of you women that are modest and not dressed like prostitutes. May God and Mary reward you. I am sure you are ridiculed too. Please God, and do not offend Him.

Believe it or not, I do not plan my day out to see how many women I can get to hate me, get me in trouble and say mean things to me. I like to be left alone like everyone else. But when God calls me to speak out the truth, I can not be quiet, no matter if I am being hated and kicked out of parishes for it. Bishops and priests, please do something about how the women come to Holy Mass greatly offending God in the way the are dressed.

So my wife wanted to do a post on this development. As the mother of five daughters, most of them very tall but slender for their ages, she has always had a very hard time finding appropriate, modest clothes for them. I say with no shame whatsoever, we buy most of our girl’s clothes at used shops……they seem to be the only place that have long skirts! It gets worse as they get older – while there are dresses made (especially for Christmas/Easter) for little girls (<12 6="" and="" city.="" daughter="" even="" harder.="" hit="" is="" it="" its="" just="" once="" p="" s="" skimpy="" teens="" their="" they="" when="" your="">

But my wife has really done a very good job of buying both used and new to keep our young ladies and girls looking very smart indeed. I’m sure it’s a problem all good Catholic moms struggle with.

Well, a mommy blogger was at Target recently and got pretty irate over the ludicrously revealing clothes being offered for even toddlers and kindergartners. She did a post and while I can’t really recommend her very secular blog, it seems she may have gotten some results. Apparently that post got picked up by some major news sites, and got the attention of Target management. They claim they are listening to this blogger’s concerns, and those of the many frustrated commenters, and may change what they offer for little girls in particular. I kind of got the impression the mom wasn’t so concerned about older girls wearing daisy dukes and tight tops, which is when it really becomes a problem. But that’s the world we are in today.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1257) all Muslims and other non Catholics need the baptism of water for salvation, since 'God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism'.

So they are oriented to Hell.

We do not know any exception in 2014 that is, when 'God is not bound to the Sacraments'.

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

The Catechism 1257 -1260 considers those who are saved without the baptism of water as exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla slaus. They are substitutes.

If they are exceptions or substitutes then they would have to be visible to us in the present times.If they are not known to us they cannot be exceptions.This is the error in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1257-1260.

I can assume that CCC 1257 God is not limited to the Sacraments refers to implicit cases, possibilities.Pope Benedict XVI and the Vatican Curia, interpret it as referrring to visible cases who are exceptions to extar ecclesiam nulla salus.

How can we say that theoretically there are persons in the present times who are exceptions to all needing the baptism of water when we canmot name any such case in 2014?

If we do not know any such person in 2014 then how can we say theoretically, God is not limited to the Sacraments and every one does not need the Baptism of water?

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.( Hypothetically O.K .Defacto there is not such case in the present times. I cannot judge who has been saved as such this year. I cannot say that any one will be saved without the baptism of water but with the baptism of blood).

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.(However there are no such case known in 2014 for them to be exceptions. Possibilities yes, Exceptions,no)

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved.(As possibilities but not as exceptions)It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

According to CCC 1257 all Muslims need the baptism of water given to adults with Catholic Faith, to go to Heaven and avoid Hell and 1258-1260 do not mention any exceptions.We cannot know any one in 2014 who is an exception.-Lionel Andrades